When should Michael Schumacher retire?

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

I don't think there have been any similar incidents this year.



It isn't that he's not winning. It's that he's being so easily beaten by his team-mate.

Maybe its because I am a Schumacher fan, but to be honest, that doesn't really bother me. It didn't bother me when he used to get outclassed by Irvine, Barrichello or Massa on the odd occasion, in fact. I don't attach this 'unbeatable' tag to him at all, I saw him get beaten by Hill, Hakkinen, JV and others even in 98' when he possibly could have won the Championship if it wasn't for the Spa incident (which for me personally IS the most dangerous thing I have ever seen in F1)...
So, for me, personally, I find it completely understandable why he is being mostly beaten by a team-mate that is almost half his age and has been racing the passed 3 years. People seem to be completely discounting the relatively bad luck he's been having too which Nico has not shared until the pitlane wheel incident this weekend.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by beau1

Maybe its because I am a Schumacher fan

Ah, that explains it. I thought it was that you really believed the move was acceptable.

Shame Rubens didn't stop moving right when he reached the line, that might have made Michael think twice before doing it again. I seem to remember Montoya saying that would be his tactic if it happened again, and curiously it didn't. Not to him, anyway.

I condemn this sort of driving tactic from anyone at all levels. If the following car is wholly behind you, move to the inside by all means, but do it straight away. It is not reasonable to wait for the following driver to commit to a move and then move in that direction, and it's completely unacceptable to continue moving over to the point of leaving insufficient space on the track once that driver is partially alongside you.


This isn't anti Schumacher. The fact is he is a repeat offender at this very tactic. I'm not complaining about the move because I don't like Schumacher. I don't like Schumacher because of this kind of move.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Woolley

This isn't anti Schumacher. The fact is he is a repeat offender at this very tactic. I'm not complaining about the move because I don't like Schumacher. I don't like Schumacher because of this kind of move.

Thats not really what I was saying about the sometimes obvious anti-Schumacher feeling. I think pretty much all incidents involving him are put on to his head by pretty much everyone (like his driving in Canada, which wasn't at all bad). I also can not stand the hypocritic view of some drivers and ex-drivers and then their, who have done similar moves. But I guess there are those who would say the same about me.
Also, there's always someone to say a bad word about something Schumacher does. Take this apology for example, people are saying 'Mercedes forced it out of him...' which really may not be the case.
People say he's a bad person or a bad sportsman but this is the same person who dedicated his 1994 title to Ayrton Senna. Its things like this which people tend to forget and to be honest, it gets on my wick a bit.

I think this move was just as 'acceptable' as Webbers crash and possibly Hamilton's weaving. If this deserves a penalty then so did they.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by beau1

I think this move was just as 'acceptable' as Webbers crash and possibly Hamilton's weaving. If this deserves a penalty then so did they.

The incident between Webber and Kovalainen was caused by common-or-garden brain-fade, not malice. And Hamilton's weaving was unsportsmanlike, but at no point was his opponent (Petrov?) put in danger.

[ljakse]

Geee...

This:

Originally Posted by beau1

I think this move was just as 'acceptable' as Webbers crash and possibly Hamilton's weaving. If this deserves a penalty then so did they.

can only be explained by this:

Originally Posted by beau1

Maybe its because I am a Schumacher fan

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

The incident between Webber and Kovalainen was caused by common-or-garden brain-fade, not malice. And Hamilton's weaving was unsportsmanlike, but at no p.oint was his opponent (Petrov?) put in danger.

Well realistically, Rubens was in no more danger than two cars are whilst being side-by-side going through the tunnel of Monaco or while going along the 'old pit straight' before entering Eau Rouge at Spa.
However, the problem I guess is that he shouldn't have been put in that situation in the first place...but when it comes down to it he had two sides of the car to choose from and going towards the pitwall was always the more risky option, whatever Michael did once he got there. I think I very small portion of the blame should be put upon Rubens in that case, especially when we consider that Schumacher had been 'shutting the door very late' a few laps before, which in all honestly I think was paranoia.
Now, without trying to be funny about all this, but if you're that worried about the car infront then why do you try and go down a gap that was always getting smaller? (because Michael was always moving to the right, even before Rubens made his move)
I'm sorry but you're just looking for trouble when you get a situation like that.
If I was going to attribute 'blame' for this incident then it would be something like 70% Schumacher (for putting the squeeze on) but 30% Rubens, for allowing himself to be put in such a position, which he did.
My main thoughts about this comes from Rubens' post race comments and his little interview with the BBC team after the race. He did not seem like a man, that was truly scared by that action, he seemed more like the 'bullied' kid that had got his own back cleverly on the person which had bullied him for years.

Anyways, I think the way Hamilton deviated across the track like he did was pretty dangerous itself. Anything can happen when you keep on altering the tow of an F1 car like that, the car behind could catch up, a wheel could interlock, anything. Petrov could have decided he was going to pull alongside and we would have had at least one car in the air.. Like anything could happen when you push someone close to a wall, at the end of the day, both were actually actions to intimidate opponents (although Hamiltons was less obvious) but again with the Rubens' situation, Petrov left himself in that situation by following Hamilton instead of taking an early inside line into the first corner.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by beau1

Anyways, I think the way Hamilton deviated across the track like he did was pretty dangerous itself. Anything can happen when you keep on altering the tow of an F1 car like that, the car behind could catch up, a wheel could interlock, anything. Petrov could have decided he was going to pull alongside and we would have had at least one car in the air.

Petrov was too far back for any of these scenarios to be realistic.

[pannenmann]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

The incident between Webber and Kovalainen was caused by common-or-garden brain-fade, not malice. And Hamilton's weaving was unsportsmanlike, but at no point was his opponent (Petrov?) put in danger.

Now I wanna wear the Schumi-goggles and write the answer that would be posted by another person else:

"But RB wasn't in any danger too as he had enough room. Otherwise he would have crashed. But Petrov being completely behind Hamilton's car, boy was that deadly dangerous! If he would have suddenly come nearer and overtook and not reacted while Hamilton kept doing it, it might possibly very well caused an accident then. That's for sure. Summary: Hamilton put Petrov in danger as a matter of fact, whereas Michael only potentially endangered Rubens in rather what-if way".

Am I doin it right?

[beau1]

Originally Posted by ljakse

Geee...

This:



can only be explained by this:

Funny you should say that, the video I have seen of Schumacher running over the back of Senna's car, around 1993 or so, I would pass the same amount of blame onto Schumacher in that instance as I do with Webber.
The car doesn't take off but its a similar type of incident, so politely shut up with any sort of pro-Schumacher point of view.
Nine of out ten times, with incidents of that nature, its the fault of the car behind.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Petrov was too far back for any of these scenarios to be realistic.

He was in his tow, if he was close enough to be picking up the amount of tow to pass (which was trying to do) and Hamilton was weaving to apparently break that tow, then yes, he was close enough for any of those scenerios to be realistic...

[phoenix]

Make your mind up! In post 320 you said:

I was taught in go-karting never to attempt a pass around the outside of a corner, when the natural line of the corner goes towards the outside upon entry because you're always going to get pushed towards the barriers

Now you are saying Rubens should have gone to the outside because the INSIDE is more risky:

Originally Posted by beau1

...but when it comes down to it he had two sides of the car to choose from and going towards the pitwall was always the more risky option, whatever Michael did once he got there. I think I very small portion of the blame should be put upon Rubens in that case

As both I and you said earlier, the outside line is always the more risky so Rubens took the 'safe' side. So how can you blame him for taking the safest route to overtake?

[ASCII Man]

In this case, going around the outside was safer, but slower.
While the inside was faster, but risky.

If I was Rubens, I would've gone for the inside too, but I wouldn't have complained afterwards.

You don't put your hand in the fire, and then complain about the burns after.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

In this case, going around the outside was safer, but slower.
While the inside was faster, but risky.

I don't agree; if Rubens had moved to pass on the left then Schumacher would have certainly moved left too to block him.

[ASCII Man]

Sure, but wall, or grass.
Guess which one hurts less.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Sure, but wall, or grass.
Guess which one hurts less.

Neither Rubens or anyone watching - including the Stewards - expected the wall to play a role in the overtake - that is the whole point. It is why Rubens was upset and why the Stewards took the action they did.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Make your mind up! In post 320 you said:



Now you are saying Rubens should have gone to the outside because the INSIDE is more risky:



As both I and you said earlier, the outside line is always the more risky so Rubens took the 'safe' side. So how can you blame him for taking the safest route to overtake?

Well, theres a simple explanation for that. They were about half a straight away from the corner so the move would have been done well before the corner and Rubens would have had the racing line well before the corner also, unlike the Massa situation when he tried the move upon entry of the corner. As we saw, Rubens was actually a good car length or two in front by the time he got to the apex of the corner.

Next time you try and find a contradiction in one (or two of my posts), please, do it properly and hopefully with a bit more logic involved. You've tried it about two or three times now and its becoming quite tiresome.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Neither Rubens or anyone watching - including the Stewards - expected the wall to play a role in the overtake - that is the whole point. It is why Rubens was upset and why the Stewards took the action they did.

That won't fly, I was watching and I fully expected it to play a part.
It's like poking a dog that you know will bite when you do it, but somehow not expect to get bitten.

Poor judgement from Rubens and anyone who thought so, imo.

[Peter Mallett]

I never felt this way about Schumacher, but I did about Graham Hill. In 1972 Hill had passed his best by a long way. He was a racer and he'd achieved records that took some beating. In fact I think his Monaco, Le Mans, indy record still stands. That said I wanted him to stop at the peak. 1970 was his last good year in terms of being on the pace. That's where he stays in my memory.

But he had to go on. Schumacher is similar. Trouble is he fails in the aggression area. Last week saw what can only be described (by rational human beings) as sheer desperation.

It wasn't racing where a driver thinks "ok, I'll do the same to him next time".

[beau1]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

That won't fly, I was watching and I fully expected it to play a part.
It's like poking a dog that you know will bite when you do it, but somehow not expect to get bitten.

Poor judgement from Rubens and anyone who thought so, imo.

This is pretty much how I feel about it too, except we obviously have a different idea of what is equal to it or not...
As soon as I saw Rubens pull right I knew there was going to be trouble, mainly because Micheal was already pulling right before Rubens had even started to make his move.

[porman]

I haven't gone through the posts here but I'm of the opinion that a bigger example should be made of Schumi and his history of blatant disregard for others lives. I never quite understood why so many people hailed him as some sort of god. I won't even try to dispute that he is, or perhaps was a gifted driver. The bottom line is that he is a douche on a personal level. He is not a sportsman and needs the car and team to revolve around him.

I know that I'm going to open up a whole can of worms here, but I never liked Senna either because of his ruthless behavior. Schumi just picked up where Senna left off. The problem is that some drivers will always want to win at any cost and if nothing is done to curb their aggressiveness, other drivers will essentially be forced to drive in the same manner if they want to be competitive. So, I guess my biggest issue isn't with Schumi, rather with those who enforce the rules and allow dangerous behavior.

Should he retire? I don't exactly have a soft spot for him.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Poor judgement from Rubens and anyone who thought so, imo.

Why is it Rubens's poor judgement that Michael pushed him into the wall? The only way in which I could perceive that as poor judgement is in knowing Michael's form for these sorts of things.

Originally Posted by beau1

They were about half a straight away from the corner so the move would have been done well before the corner and Rubens would have had the racing line well before the corner also, unlike the Massa situation when he tried the move upon entry of the corner. As we saw, Rubens was actually a good car length or two in front by the time he got to the apex of the corner.

Is that a reason for why he ought to have gone on the left? He should overtake down the inside if he wants. He was clearly capable of doing so. You don't even need the racing line into the next corner if you have track position. You just aim to get back onto it ASAP.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

The only way in which I could perceive that as poor judgement is in knowing Michael's form for these sorts of things.

Exactly!

[mrchrisdavies]

I would love to see him retire at the end of the season...no now! seriously! He should never have comeback.

However, in a more constructive thought principle...if I were him I would carry on for say another 4 or 5 years, like Rubens has done for example. I dont feel MS has anything like what he had before. What he still has though is good driving ability and that aggresive edge (which he will never lose) If he can control his stupid driving and arrogance and get a good car he could still in with a shout at winning another championship one day. At the minute however he still seems to be in self distruct mode.

I was beginning to like him a little bit until he came back. Now I remember why I hated him and how he made me almost stop watching F1 altogether!

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by beau1

As soon as I saw Rubens pull right I knew there was going to be trouble, mainly because Micheal was already pulling right before Rubens had even started to make his move.

If you watch it again Schumacher positions himself in the middle of the track after exiting the last corner. Then he is driving straight, down the middle of the track, for about three seconds. Only when Rubens pulls right (there is more than a car's width between Schumacher and the white line defining the edge of the track when he does so - never mind between Schumacher and the wall) does Schumacher make his SECOND move - also to the right.

The point made above about Rubens being past and so having the racing line into turn one had he gone on the outside just isn't the case. At the braking point Rubens would only just have had his front wheels in front of Schumacher's, so unless he 'did a Vettel' and turned into Schumacher he could not have passed on the outside: Look here at 44 minutes 19 seconds into the highlights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ix_Highlights/

From Schumacher's position on the track you could also guess that Rubens would have had at least two wheels on the grass - if not all four - by that point. Oh, and at the apex in turn one they are nose to tail - Rubens is not a length or two ahead - 44 minutes and 22 seconds in on the link above if you'd like to confirm.

[porman]

Chris,

Just out of curiosity. Whom is your favorite driver and why? Sorry to hi-jack the thread guys!